big casino. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. leading off tonight, shooting the moon. president obama met today with congressional leaders to deal with the debt and he may have calmed the republican' bluff. the president is pushing a plan much bigger than before with $4 trillion. that's trillion with a t, spending cuts. major changes to medicare and to social security could be on the table as well. provided republicans agree to an increase in tax revenues. we may be watching president obama outmaneuvering his republican opponents, positioning himself as an even bigger deficit hawk than those on the right. it's a bold move, but will it work?

and what happens if no deal on the debt creeling is reached? is president obama's last best option to invoke the 14th amendment, to bypass congress and borrow beyond the debt limit? conservatives are usually quick to defend the constitution, but congressman tim scott of south carolina says that move might be worthy of, believe it or not, impeachment. how's this for a fight? fox is going after the media watchdog group media matter saying it doesn't deserve its tax exempt status, it's a partisan operation they say. the same charge media manages and routinely makes against fox, that it's partisan. after escaping a potential death penalty conviction, casey anthony is going free. she'll be released from jail wednesday. one of the jurors says doing so may have made them sick to their stomachs. in fact, she said 2-it-did. those on the jury. finally, simple questions don't always illicit simple answers. that's in the "side show"

tonight. and serious business in negotiations running through sunday. james clyburn of south carolina, the assistant democratic leader. mr. clyburn, i always like having you on the show because you're so, so reminded and you've got some serious american history behind you, for better or worse or both. what do you make of this fact that the president of the united states is going big casino? talking of $4 trillion cut over ten years? he's really putting the really dicey issues on the table, social security, medicare, big if, big i-f, if republicans backs off its no tax position. what do you make of that? >> thank you so much for having me. you're kind with your compliments. let me say this when we first started the biden talks being in that room, $4 trillion was a number we all talked about. we did feel, though that we couldn't get there, but that we

should do something that would be a down payment on getting there. something between $1.4 and $2 trillion. and so these discussions we've had. and i would say to those people who have gotten so nervous about the president putting things like medicare on the table to remind them that when medicare part d was done, we brought in to support medicare that a lot of pharmaceuticals didn't have. they is medicaid. putting medicare out there and not allowing for adjusted rates, that's what got the costs up. if we had negotiated rates for medicare, same for the v.a., for veterans in the v.a., veterans administration, that could see a tremendous cost savings. so i am hopeful that that's the

kind of thing that the president is talking about, when he puts things like medicare on the table, and not a cut in any benefits, but the kind of negotiated rates that you have for veterans. >> let's talk about the people who were involved in this. i've never seen such a vivid staging, if you will, of the key people running this country. i think i see our constitution on display. the spread not a dictator. he doesn't call the shots. he's got to deal with the republican speaker of the house, boehner. deal with the democratic and republican leadership. eugene robinson will be on the show in a couple minutes. i want to go through the baseball leadership cards with him. a couple i want to go over with you. do you think speaker boehner is really free act according to his conscience or is he being held back by maybe 60 to 80 tea party people led by eric cantor, the number two man on the republican side, who are basically terrorizing him and threatening him if he cuts a deal somewhere

down the middle? >> well, i would say this about, speaker boehner. i've known him for a long time. we have interacted both on the floor together and we have done so socially. i've played golf with him. i know him pretty well, i think, and i do believe that he is in a box when it comes to this, this issue, of the debt ceiling, because he has a number of people -- i hope it's not 80. i've been saying between 40 and 50. if it's up to 80, we really are in trouble, and she in trouble as well. but that's what's got him in a box. he knows the art of compromise. he know what's it takes to get legislation done, and for him to be in the position he's currently in, i really have a lot of compassion for where he is.

>> okay. let's try to be balanced here and go to the liberal side of, the progressive side of the democratic party. with your caucus and you're a leader of the home caucus, got people from california, from the bay area, people from the northeast, from the new york city area. members of the black caucus. people that are very liberal. will they go along with any kind of deal that questions social security, like a means test for rich people, something that says after certain income level or certain something you don't get a cola. are they willing to attempt, if you will, with these sort of sacred texts, social security, soar that off the table? >> absolutely not off the table. if you talk to members of my party they will tell you, it's across the board. they believe we ought to look at something like lifting the caps off of social security. we think it's a problem with people making $106,000 a year paying 100% -- paying social

security on 100% of their income and a person making $212,000 a year only paying social security on 50% of his or her income. we need to take a look at that, and that raises money. means testing is something that needs to be looked at, and i can tell you there is strong support in both wings, all seven talks in the democratic caucus for taking that kind of a look at social security benefits. >> what a big pick cheer you're looking at now. congressman, thanks. let's look at eric cantor, definitely the wimp on the right, talking on "morning joe." let's listen. >> the president wants to talk loopholes fine. we need offsetting tax cuts somewhere else. we're not for raising taxes. that's not the right thing to do with a sputtering economy and so many people in america out of work. >> you know, he reminds me of the young dick nixon. so many times i watch this guy, cantor. he is a fire eater on the right.

he seems to be cutting that herd off from the leadership, from speaker boehner and riling them. here he is saying we'll fix up the tax code a bit but with no increase in tax when we have a government that's only taxing 16% of the gdp and spending 25% of it. a deficit like that and he won't even talk bringing up the revenues to catch up to the spending? he's an ideologue and i don't think he is a pure opportunistic politician. seriously, you don't have to go out like that. i'm doing it for television. you got to work with the guy. is that what we're facing? opportunism on the right playing leadership games with the tea party crowd. >> once again, nobody in our meetings, nobody in our caucus, is talking about raising rates. we are talking about closing loopholes. we're talking about getting rid of these subsidies for big oil. these people don't need these subsidies. they will tell you they don't

need them. get rid of that stuff. we're talking about stop giving tax cuts to people who send jobs overseas. i think eric cantor knows that nobody is talking about raising taxes. we are talking about getting rid of these subsidies, closing the loopholes and, really, having an effective tax rate. they keep talking about a 35% corporate rate, when we all know it's somewhere between 16% and 19% in terms of effectiveness because of all of these loopholes. if people were paying what the rate is, i don't mind dropping it to 25%, 26%, just collect that much and get rid of the loopholes. >> okay. congressman james clyburn, one of the house leadership. thanks so much for joining us. pulitzer prize winning columnist, eugene, look at these leaders. you're on msnbc and now it's time to analyze. this is "hardball." look at people acting now a big

deal coming up perhaps sunday. going back again with the president. take a look at -- hold those pictures up there. i'd like gene to go through these names. the president wants a deal. right? >> yes. the president wants a deal, yes. >> and he's going to make concessions on the left with things like -- >> willing to make concessions in order to get a deal, and he -- he's put himself in a position to almost win either way, because if he gets a deal, he's -- you know, he's the guy that got it done. he will live out -- >> he's a leader. >> he's a leader. he's a compromiser. and he will have moved the republicans off the no new revenue ever position. it's just -- >> let's look at the second person on that picture. look at the big four again. the four faces. how about speaker boehner? does he want a deal? >> he is in a box. i think he does want a deal. i've heard that he wants a deal. he's had these secret meetings with obama. i think he takes his

constitutional responsibility seriously. >> don't become a deadbeat country? >> it's don't become a deadbeat country. you can't let the country default. >> two dealmakers there. here we are, let's go to steny hoyer. house democratic leader. number two man. he wants a deal? >> he wants a deal definitely. >> durbin is out there. durbin backed the bipartisan commission. >> yeah. >> here are the four dealmakers. now the interesting guys and people. look at other people, of the baseball cards. let's look at these three guy. eric cantor. >> uh-huh. >> does he really want a deal or does he want armageddon? >> i don't think he would. >> he wants to bring down boehner, probably? >> well, you know, that's the question. the dynamic between boehner and cantor. i think cantor does want to bring down boehner and not give boehner enough slack to make a deal. >> because if boehner cut as deal with the president of the united states with the party behind him, he's a leader.

>> yeah. >> a couple other people. who's the other person? look at other person who made it. mitch mcconnell. does he want a deal or armageddon? does he want -- you've said he wanted to defeat president obama at all costs. >> his number one priority, make obama a one-term president. he wants to stand pat. he doesn't want the country defaulting but he doesn't really want -- >> would it break his heart if obama was in a disaster this week? >> it would the not break his heart. >> look at nancy pelosi. i have to play agnostic. i know she's a liberal progressive leader in the congress. does she want a deal that touches social security? that perhaps takes away the democrat gain on medicare to blame the republicans? >> entirely depends on how it touches it social security and medicare. ideally, democrats would not want a deal that has anything to do with medicare, because they've got a great medicare issue to go after republicans on, but if that's what it takes

to get a deal, and if the medicare cuts are not draconian, they'll take t. ladies and gentlemen, together, my very smart fellow here, analyst harks gone through the list and agrees completely with me. the people who want a deal sometime between now and august 2nd are the president of the united states. steny hoyer, democrat. democrat number two in the senate, dick durbin and, john boehner speaker of the house. on the republican side, the people who are a problem, mitch mcconnell, certainly eric cantor, certainly -- well, leave it at that. perhaps pelosi. we just don't know. fascinating stuff. coming up, what are president obama's options if he doesn't get a deal? look at a deep perhaps by august 2nd. what if he doesn't get a deal? can we bypass congress under the 14th amendment and keep the country going by executive power and force the country to meet its bills? we'll hear from a brilliant columnist says. hear what she says. this is not radical. this is constitutional.

you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] things seem better with travelocity's best price guarantee. our girl's an architect.

our boy's a genius. we are awesome parents! biddly-boop. [ male announcer ] if you find a lower rate on a room you've booked, we won't just match it. we'll give you $50 towards your next trip. [ gnome ] it's go time. talk about strange bedfellows? south carolina democrat jim demint teamed up with maine moderate olympia snow to call for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. they pushed for this in an op-ed in today's "wall street journal." snow's up for re-election next year and teaming up with demint will no doubt help her fend off a primary challenge from the right. politics makes strange bedfellows. we'll be right back. is now honey nut cheerios! yup, america's favorite. so we're celebrating the honey sweetness, crunchy oats and... hey! don't forget me!! honey nut cheerios. make it your favorite too!

welcome back to "hardball." what are president obama's options in this fight? starkest terms, defeat. or default, obviously. a third option floated by the

treasury secretary himself. could president obama invoke the 14th amendment to keep the united states from defaulting on our debt? the editor of the nation and jeffrey rose a constitutional law professor at georgetown university. let me read the 14th amendment section 4. it reads in part, the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law shall not be questioned. now here's the secretary of the treasury, timothy geithner, on the unconstitutionality of congress not raising the debt ceiling. let's listen. >> i think there are some people who are pretending not to understand it. who think there's leverage for them in threatening a default. i don't understand it as negotiating positions. think about it. you're going say, i'm going to read you the 14th amendment. >> we'll stipulate i. want to read this one thing. >> it's paper clipped in his -- >> the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law including debts incurred for bounties in

services in suppressing insurrection ever rebellion, the important thing, shall not be questioned. >> there you go. thank you for joining us from the nation there. i read your op-ed in the paper. powerful stuff. take a couple of minutes and explain for those who don't know about this amendment in the constitution about the president's authority in this situation? >> interesting that secretary geithner is carrying this around. this is a last resort, but it is the fourth section of the 14th amendment passed in the wake of the civil law, and it was -- enacted for many reasons but in the public debt arena, that the confederacy, debts would not be paid but the public debt paid to the government. what we have chris, an interesting moment in our time where if the president does a plain reading of the constitution, he has both an

option and an obligation to enforce this and it kind of throws it back at the tea party, in a sense, which has waived -- waved the constitution as its document. it's interesting that today the white house is talking about doomsday scenarios but we are facing real financial calamity at home and abroad and this is a tool a bow in the president's tool kit, leverage with a republican party that so far refused to cooperate. will they walk away from cuts, if the president has to, he needs to invoke this, and he has not spoken about it, but i do think it would give him a leadership role to speak concretely at this point in these negotiations. >> let's look at one thing he did say along these lines. going to the law professor, and i want to hear more about your thinking. president obama yesterday asked about invoking the fourth amendment at yesterday's town

hall. >> i don't think we should get to the constitutional issue. congress has the responsibility to make sure we pay our bills. we've always paid them in the past. the notion that the u.s. is going to default on its debt is just irresponsible. >> professor rose of georgetown, washington university. i said georgetown. two great universities in town here. let me ask you, is that accurate have is that your reading of the constitution as well? >> it is. i agree with katerina. i believe it's great that geithner is waving this. it is the sieve is war, the south won repudiating its war debt and consume the confederate debt. congress said they couldn't do this. in the 1930s during the new deal, fdr went off the gold standard. actually that was a repudiation of the public debt.

it changed the values of the bonds. that might mean that president obama is on strong grounds here, but if anyone were to challenge it the supreme court might not want to get involved. i can imagine they would skip out. go ahead, katrina. >> in terms of the challenge, a lawsuit -- jeffrey, correct me if i'm wrong, but it would have to come from congress. a joint resolution. i don't see that happening with the democratic senate. more important is that president, again, he's a constitutional lawyer. of course there's troubling questions about executive overreach, but we have seen an unwillingness to negotiate, and i think as you said at the beginning, chris, this is not radicalism. this is constitutionalism and it is worth reminding americans of what is in this document that could be used in this crisis at a moment when we face true calamity. >> you know, we've had a big debate here. you've had editorial meetings as the nation. we have them here with producers. some people i work with, maybe i'm with them sometimes and

maybe i am. in fact i think i am. some people on right who wil say, michele bachmann a few others like her, who are lawyers and should know, they'll say, well, it's not really going to be a catastrophe if we don't pay our debts as a country. i always say, wait a minute. i'm thinking, wait a minute. maybe that's the kind of rick they're quite willing to take, because we who have an armageddon situation, we get into something like greece is in now or portugal island, that won't be so bad for the opposition. because then they can say, see how the democrats messed it up? >> well, you raise an important question, chris. i do think -- first of all, this country has gone through economic calamity and catastrophe in these last few years, but it could unwind and unravel at home and abroad. there is a legitimate question to be raised, witnessed how the republicans have engaged in these negotiations as to whether the republicans are committed to tanking an economic in order to up-end and overtake and -- to take out and to defeat president

obama, and i don't think that is the way this country should be governed. i think there needs to be negotiating. >> do you think they're doing that? >> absolutely. you had a list of people ut there before, and mitch mcconnell, senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky. what did he say, chris, his first priority. this at a time of economic pain and catastrophe, to defeat president obama. but i think, again did is important to understand that there is a constitutional option. the president, and you know this, chris, is not a president who has been one to speak forcefully to come into confrontation. he is confrontation averse. but this could be done in a way to elevate, to rally people, to both a cause, to a need, to focus on the economic issues and to the constitution to retake the constitution would not be a bad thing at a moment when i believe it has not been used well in these last years. >> to the professor for a last thought and big one. is it possible?

a political assessment. do you think possibly the secretary of the treasury has been given the job of floating this option, if it comes to a midnight situation and we're watching the world markets, bond markets and bond vigilantes ready to attack and see our country under danger, ultimately, like fights over war power, in the end it's the command are and chief hawaii to fight for the country. back not go back to the congress if they don't want to fight with him? >> absolutely. obama might not raise them now but he's willing to. no one has more standing to do this and these are plausible, strong arguments that really could mobilize a. great guy to have on. thank you very much, jeffrey rosen of george washington university and katrina of the grace "nation" magazine. up next, tim pawlenty has a snappy nickname. i call him good & plenty, sort of. he wants to know he's really down with the kids. catch his tag on lady gaga.

actually sort of credible when he talks this stuff. i was amazed. you're watching "hardball." only on msnbc.

back to "hardball." now to the "sideshow" tonight. stop the presses. the racy british tabloid "news of the world" announced it will publish its final edition sunday. the rupert murdoch publication was under fire or allegedly hacking into voicemails of people who had been murdered, believe it or not. the final straw might have been this indictment from prime minister david cameron. >> i feel so appalled, murder victims, terrorist victims with their phone hacked is disgraceful. >> the concerted party going after murdoch.

wow. news of the world in print for 16 world. currently britain the biggest sunday publication. the end of that is no loss to humanity. stateside, tim plenty goes gaga. with bloggers in iowa i. have a question for you guys. are you ready? >> we're ready. >> what's your favorite lady gaga song? >> that's easy. >> "glory ". >> "glory." >> "paparazzi ". >> in terms of the beat, i like "bad romance ". i got to say, even though she's a little unusual, "born this way" -- she's actually talented. go to the end of the lady gaga hbo special and watch her sing a cappella, "born this way" she can definitely sing. she's talented. if you had to limit your choices to just conservatives we wouldn't have a lot of choices. >> wow. republican politician. any politician that knows the phrase a cappella impresses me. i call him good & plenty.

sounds like a person speaking, not a staffer's idea for a politician to say which he often sounds like. now to the big numbers. president obama, a man of his words. the questions at yesterday's town hall limited to 140 characters each, how many did the president use per each, per answer to respond jp 2,099 words on average. characters that is on average. that's the equivalent of 15 twitter messages. 2,099 characters per answer. tonight's very big number. up next, it's an all-out war between fox news and the watchdog group media matters. that little tussle is coming up next. you're watching "hardball." only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] from nutritional science comes centrum. with vitamins and minerals balanced to support your energy... ♪ ...immune function... ♪ ...healthy skin... and help protect your cells from environmental stress. everyday benefits

from advanced formulas. the complete benefits of centrum. and if you're over 50, discover the age-adjusted benefits of centrum silver. new newtons fruit thins. real cranberries and delicious cranberry citrus oat... ♪ or real blueberries... ♪ ...and luscious blueberry brown sugar. the goodness of whole grains...

and a thin crispy crunch. new newtons fruit thins, one unique cookie.

>> hey there everyone. i'm alex witt.

here is what is happening. manhunt is under way in grand rapids, michigan. police say seven people, including a child, were shot and killed at two separate locations. they are looking for robert dansler, described as a violent person with a criminal past. there were violent lightning strikes near the space shuttle. with more storms on the way, there is only 30% chance of atlantis launching tomorrow morning. a tight scheduled execution of in texas. doctors replaced a wind pipe with a healthy one grown in a lab. i'm alex witt. now back it "hardball" here on msnbc. welcome back to "hardball." media matters. we know that. fox is at war we knew that. media matters, dispose

distractions. the right wing cable channel fox is taking direct aim at media matters calling it to be stripped of its tax exempt status. for more, turn to ron reagan. thank you for joining us. josh marshall, editor of "talking points." seems to me the law is fairly clear. you get tax example status unless you're an actual partisan organization that promotes candidates, gets them elected. it's fair to call media matters progressive in its orientation. you're entitled to your 5013-c. whatever. your thoughts? >> right. they haven't violated the law. they are not promoting specific candidates, not training people

in their media training organization to run for office as republicans or work for republican candidates. they're unabashed about their progressive meeting. us a say, you can be ideological and be tax exempt, you can't be political, and they're not. >> josh some group in virginia does train people to win right-wing elections. i don't know what their tax status is. let's talk about the fight, more than tax status. fox is conservative. i mean, let's take a look, by the way, at this discussion between -- here's david, 2010 planning memo that says, criticizing fox news has nothing do with criticizing the press. fox news is not a news organization. the de facto leader of the gop and it's long past time they start be treated as such by the media. elected officials and the public. fair assessment? >> i think so. fox has a great thing, they've made a great business model out of being a propaganda operation.

i know some people who work at fox i think are trying to be good journalists but the institution itself operates as a wing of the republican party. there's no getting around that. the issue for fox is that, you know, that's no secret, and critics over the year, even had watchdog -- but media matters packs a bigger punch. they're well fund and smart and do a good job. >> they're tough. >> and land add few punches. >> amp me on occasion i know how tough they are. let's look. ronny, take a look at the conversation, it's very important, history of the media, between jon stewart, of comedy central, of course, and chris wallace. i think chris wallace laid down an interesting line here on what fox is all about. i think it's fair to say what he says now in this, perhaps, unrehearsed comment than was ever said by the advertising of fox when they called themselves fair and balanced. let's listen to chris wallace. >> you believe that fox news is

exactly the ideological equivalent of nbc news? >> i think we're the counter -- i think that they have a liberal agenda and we tell the other side of the story. >> well, there's an admission by ron and then, josh, not saying fair and balances, he's saying they're a balancing act of the point of view of the major broadcast networks and i guess us? >> yeah. >> that's right. abc, nbc, cbs, the "new york times," everybody else in the media is part of a liberal conspiracy and poor, lonely little fox is out there all on their own counterbalancing this. of course, he admitted in saying that, they are, in fact, a conservative voice. a right-ring voice in the media and the difference between fox and, let's say, msnbc, which i think we can say as probably the more progressive point of view of any of the met networks, you stick to the facts. you don't go out and make things up. fox makes things up.

>> okay. let me go to josh marshall for that. agreement or not agreement with that strong assessment, indictment, i'd call it, from ron reagan? >> i think it's -- >> fox makes things up, that it has a propaganda feature? >> they don't have the same journalistic instinct of most legitimate media. that doesn't mean all their stuff is off, but -- there's a difference between coming from a point of view and not being honest with your viewers or your readers. that's a line that fox consistently crosses. >> if you only watch fox and there's some people who do, and i think they're really in trouble personally, i think you'd be in trouble personally if you only watched to be honest, any network. let me go back to ron. you and i grew up, made our own decisions. i don't have the same politics as my parents pup don't.

you have to put your own stew together, launch a little of this, a little of that. read certain magazines. how do you do it? most people put things together intelligently. they don't have a daddy or mommy to come along and tell them what to think. you don't ask roger ailes to tell you what to think? >> no. absolutely. you sample a variety of media and look for things that make sense to you. you may not be an expert in various policy area, but you have common sense and ask yourself, does this pass the smell test? i'm listening to fox, talking about obama is a racist and global warming is a hoax perpetrated by thousands of scientists around the world. does that make sensor not? if it doesn't, you have to ask, who's purveying that information? >> josh, some people want to be intellectually led. they walk around and say i am a dittohead after listening to limbaugh. why would anybody want to be a ditto anything? a ditto husband a ditto wife, a ditto anything? you want to be somewhat

original? don't you? something that's self-determined. not something that's a derivative of what rush limbaugh was thinking or saying, put it that way the other afternoon? >> both the left and right have their own built-in shortcomings and on the right there is kind of an authoritarian mentality that prefers in some ways liking to be led and get the sort of authoritative line, but, again -- >> they like goose-stepping? what do you me? authoritarian? they do like being given orders? >> yeah. i think even -- look it is widely recognized that maybe not this cycle but in the past the republican party much more often nominates the front-runner than the democratic party does. that has to do with, that's a kind of a follow the leader mentality. not about goose-stepping on leadership principles. it's a different way of thinking about political action. >> how does that fit into

watching fox? >> what's that? >> how does that fit in with watching fox, as a habit? >> i think that there is a greater willingness to -- >> be told what to think? >> yeah. to be told what to think to have the kind of a single line of opinion that you follow. i want to come back to the bake point. there is a basic difference between reporting with a viewpoint and being and not being honest with your viewers. i think there's a lot of stuff that fox reports that the people reporting it know it's not really true. >> by the way, you mentioned a couple people over there you rely on. i do think shepherd smith, a couple that are journalists. >> not just the people in front of the camera. there's people there as grips and cameramen and all sorts of stuff. again, the leadership of the organization, the bake tone and strategy, the indictment that brock is making at fox in most cases i think is pretty accurate. >> i'll get around to that.

>> a masquerade as a news organization. >> thank you both. we agreed, didn't surprise me but it did. casey anthony released next wednesday. watch her face in the hearings. fascinating. reacts immediately to her parents' circumstances. this is a very in the moment human being here. i don't want to go further. this is "hardball" on msnbc. @ó@

karl rove says it sent set yet.

governor perry succeeded bush in the lone star state and has been flirting with a run for weeks now, and conservative activists will welcome this. the fact that perry is governor of one of the biggest states in the country makes him a formidable candidate and fund-raiser. i'm not sure the bush people like this guy. we'll be right back. ♪ [ mrs. davis ] i want to find a way to break through. to make science as exciting as a video game. i need to reach peter, who's falling behind. and push janet who's 6 chapters ahead. ♪ [ male announcer ] with interactive learning solutions from dell, mrs. davis can make education a little more personal. so every student feels like her only student. dell. the power to do more.

i know you're worried about making your savings last and having enough income when you retire. that's why i'm here -- to help come up with a plan and get you on the right path. i have more than a thousand fidelity experts working with me so that i can work one-on-one with you. it's your green line. but i'll be there every step of the way. call or come in and talk with us today.

so i took my heartburn pill and some antacids. we're having mexican tonight, so another pill then? unless we eat later, then pill later? if i get a snack now, pill now? skip the snack, pill later... late dinner, pill now? aghh i've got heartburn in my head. [ male announcer ] stop the madness of treating frequent heartburn. it's simple with prilosec otc. one pill a day. twenty-four hours. zero heartburn. no heartburn in the first place. great. we're back. casey anthony found not guilty of murder earlier in the week was sentenced to four years and fined $4,000 for lying in the investigation for her daughter caylee. we credit for a time already served, next wednesday she'll be freer. let's bring in nbc news correspondent kerry sanders who covered the story actually from

prosecutor, susan keri. i don't know if you could write a book about this. but you must be so flabbergasted by everything that's happened, and i guess -- kerry, let me ask you about this case here. you're smiling, but i don't know. what do you make of it at this point? she's out next wednesday? >> reporter: it's -- it's a remarkable story. the journey is a book, and you're right. i have writ an book. that's why i was smiling and will hopefully have it available as early as next week. i'm waiting for the final chapter to be written. you know that wednesday date, it's a moving target. even though they've done the calculations it's not set in stone. she may leave earlier. i think they're doing a lot of that simply because it's possible that her departure from the jail could become a spectacle and they're concerned about even her safety. just having her leave the jail and return to the jail today was very difficult. the jail guards and the officials there, corrections officials, brought in their

s.r.u., like a s.w.a.t. team an really high extreme security, because the concern is that there is so much anger in this community, that somebody will act out because so many people believed, you know, in this community here in the orlando area, they have lived with this for three years. this hasn't been a month-plus long trial. this has been almost every day in their community on local television, in the newspaper, on the webs, and a lot of people talking about it almost daily, you know, over breakfast, at the table. and so everybody thought they knew what was going to happen. and when the jury came back and acquitted her on the main charges here, the felony charges, the murder charges, there was just as we have all seen those jaws that dropped, chris, because people thought they knew something different. >> here last night, juror number three, jennifer ford, spoke out on abc news and questioned what she called a lack of evidence in the case. let's listen to that. >> it doesn't feel good. it was a horrible decision to

have to make. but i had to do it based on the law. there wasn't enough evidence, there wasn't anything strong enough to say exactly -- i don't think anyone in america could tell us exactly how she died. if you put even just the 12 jurors in one room with a piece of paper, write down how caylee died, nobody knows. we would all be guessing. we have no idea. >> what do we say about justice in america, susan, when the jurors say prosecutors didn't make their case, they didn't see the connection between the person they may think is a killer but they can't see the evidence of them killing and yet nobody is ever going to be punished for this? what does that say about our system if no one will ever be punish for the killing of this baby? >> what it is says is that the rule of law lives in this country. we don't have vigileante justice. we don't have mob justice. while it's not the verdict that i would have reached, i was shocked and stunned by it, and i disagree with it, i respect it. i respect that jury that was in that courtroom every day, and decided this case on the evidence presented before it. not on emotion, and not on

television. and that's what you and i would want, if god forbid if it were we in that defendant spot. >> what are they thinking happened if it wasn't a murder by her of her daughter? what other possible reality occurred here that explained her not reporting this for 30 days and all of the other circumstantial evidence? what other conclusion could they have drawn? >> what they said, and we don't know. we think but we'd be speculating. and the medical examiner made a homicide determination based on an inference, because of the way the remains were found. casey anthony got the benefit of this being a decomp case with just skeletal remains. but when you have an inference of homicide and a circumstantial case built on that, the jury was not comfortable that the state had met its burden of proof. i have to respect them for that. i didn't have any trouble connecting the dots and i could look at the big picture and say what you said, chris.

what other reasonable logical conclusion could you drayou? but that's not how this jury saw it. and you've got to respect they didn't decide this just on either hating her or calling her a liar. they looked at this problem in the case, it's there no matter how you slice it, nobody really knows for sure how casey died. if you don't know that, you can't be sure it was homicide. if it wasn't homicide, it might have been accident. that's how they came down on it. >> kerry, as you look ahead, what will happen to her? will they sneak her off to somewhere else? how are they going to avoid more calamity here? >> well, i think they are going to have to sneak her out. and there's really no choice because of the anger in the community. and it's unclear, but she likely will be able to go anywhere she wants in the united states, puerto rico, you don't need a passport to go to puerto rico. of course, remember, this is a woman who was really no income at all. then was arrested. and through this process hired private attorneys.

initially part of their funds were funded by abc news that paid them $200,000. that money dried up. she was declared indigent, which normally somebody in florida who is indigent gets a public defender. but attorney jose baez and later cheney mason were so deep into this case, it didn't make sense to change, you know, courses in mid stream here. so what they wound up doing was they decided that the judge would approve all of the expenses associated with it she would maintain with these attorneys and now jose baez is, i think, going to be with casey anthony in some sort of perhaps financial relationship going forward. we're trying to follow up on a story today that isn't confirmed yet that the two of them have signed with an agent, because there may be some value. but, you know, she has no money. she has $300 some odd dollars in a commissary account in jail, and that's it, chris.

>> kerry, we're degree to read your book. the book of the century kerry sanders coming up here. and susan fallon who believes in the law. when we return, the critical situation that the country is in right now in terms of our finances and why we need leaders to take action. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc.

let me finish tonight with a short statement about the situation this country faces. we can act or not act.

we can meet our responsibilities to pay the bills or go into default. we can be a great country, or we can conduct ourselves as something less, much less, something like those countries we have long and fairly looked upon as less than serious, less than accountable, before the world. america needs to be accountable. we take on too many duties in world to be held up to scorn, to be out theres as a country who can't make good on her financial commitments. simply put, we can't afford to be seen as a dead beat. there are politicians out there on the stump right now who say we don't have to pay our bills. they say it. who knows what they actually believe or even if they have sat down gotten themselves in touch with the reality of the situation. but people in the leadership do know. john boehner knows. so do the other leaders in the congress. they know the facts, the risks, the consequences, and have no choice knowing them what they must do, how they must conduct thselves in the days ahead. so it's one of those times to act, to push people to act out there, and to ask and, yes, to judge those who do not. that's "hardball" for now.